CDZ If you . . .

[Mac1958]

Do you think there is a part of the Republican Party that supports segregation, opposes inter-racial and gay marriages, opposes

Yes, and I am sure there are some in the Democratic party that believes the same. If you think otherwise, your simply naive.

Many who call themselves "Democrats" do so simply because they hate "Republicans", and many who call themselves "Republicans" do so simply because they hate "Democrats".

The true description of either is not Republican or Democrat, it is Sheep.

I apologize for the blurb you responded to. As you may have seen, it’s a partially formed sentence. It was to see where Mac1958 would place the far right republicans and see if he would call them “regressive republicans”. I didn’t want to hijack the thread though

Actually I think of them as Talk Show Republicans.

Regressive Leftist is a term coined by liberal Muslim Brit.
.

 

[martybegan]

If you understand Marxism, you would know it's 100% across the board. That's what collectivism is. Everything you produce belongs to the state.

Or am I wrong?


.

I don't know, because no one is communicating. Everyone is just screaming the party line like trained seals.

Nothing happens until we can communicate.
.

I am communicating, you don't listen sometimes. You just like to smugly look down on everyone else and lecture them like some condescending pseudo intellectual.

So I'll repeat myself.

If you understand Marxism, you would know it's 100% across the board. That's what collectivism is. Everything you produce belongs to the state.

Or am I wrong?

Yes, that's a good description.

Do you really believe that there are many people who want everything produced to belong to the state?
.

Yes. There are people out there who agree with socialism, whereby the government is in control of taking and distributing monies equally amongst the people. Or at least that is what they THINK would happen. Lol.

That depends on your definition of socialism. Bernie Sanders' definition, for example, is the Euro-social democracies. Not Venezuela.

In those democracies, government does not own and control sources of production and distribution, which is the REAL definition of the socialism.

So until we can agree on terms, we won't get anywhere. And that will require honest communication.
.

You do realize that no one plans for Venezuela, it just kind of happens, right?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No, I don't go for arguments about political systems that would never work in the real world. You can talk about the morality of government all you want, but any proposal you have for a system of civilization without government will never work, or will work in a way you don't expect it.

Oh really? And how do you know this? Did you see it in the Palantir?

So your speculations should trump morality and logic, and my children should be enslaved with YOUR consent on the basis of your fear about what will "work" and what won't?

What would you call a person who tosses aside morality and logic in favor obtaining a desired outcome? I'll let you answer that for yourself, so as not to offend.

If you can't answer my questions, then your position is bullshit - simple as that. You have "abandoned reason for madness." Ask me any question under the sun and I can either answer it, or give you a logical reason why it is unanswerable. If you can't do that, you should never return to these boards because you've got nothing to say. You can believe whatever you want, but when you step out of your cave and support authoritarian rule on other people, you better have a damn solid argument for doing so. I've asked you to defend that argument against valid challenges, and you have declined.

Perhaps you'd like to have a second chance to "show your quality". Here's your opportunity:

1. What is a "right"?

2. Where do rights come from?

3. Are rights equal between all people?

 

[Pete7469]

You do realize that no one plans for Venezuela, it just kind of happens, right?

If you're lucky....

You also can end up with soviet gulags, nazi concentration camps, chinese great leaps into mass graves, and cambodian "re-education" festivities.

Show me ONE socialist country where the economy is booming, innovations are flowing, and the standard of living keeps getting better.



.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't know, because no one is communicating. Everyone is just screaming the party line like trained seals.

Nothing happens until we can communicate.
.

I am communicating, you don't listen sometimes. You just like to smugly look down on everyone else and lecture them like some condescending pseudo intellectual.

So I'll repeat myself.

If you understand Marxism, you would know it's 100% across the board. That's what collectivism is. Everything you produce belongs to the state.

Or am I wrong?

Yes, that's a good description.

Do you really believe that there are many people who want everything produced to belong to the state?
.

Yes. There are people out there who agree with socialism, whereby the government is in control of taking and distributing monies equally amongst the people. Or at least that is what they THINK would happen. Lol.

That depends on your definition of socialism. Bernie Sanders' definition, for example, is the Euro-social democracies. Not Venezuela.

In those democracies, government does not own and control sources of production and distribution, which is the REAL definition of the socialism.

So until we can agree on terms, we won't get anywhere. And that will require honest communication.
.

You do realize that no one plans for Venezuela, it just kind of happens, right?

I understand, sure, but I'm confident our Constitution will prevent that.

So, the question remains, where along the continuum we choose to be.

As long as everyone is screaming and no one is listening, I suspect we'll just keep seeing these wild swings back & forth.
.

 

[martybegan]

No, I don't go for arguments about political systems that would never work in the real world. You can talk about the morality of government all you want, but any proposal you have for a system of civilization without government will never work, or will work in a way you don't expect it.

Oh really? And how do you know this? Did you see it in the Palantir?

So your speculations should trump morality and logic, and my children should be enslaved with YOUR consent on the basis of your fear about what will "work" and what won't?

What would you call a person who tosses aside morality and logic in favor obtaining a desired outcome? I'll let you answer that for yourself, so as not to offend.

If you can't answer my questions, then your position is bullshit - simple as that. You have "abandoned reason for madness." Ask me any question under the sun and I can either answer it, or give you a logical reason why it is unanswerable. If you can't do that, you should never return to these boards because you've got nothing to say. You can believe whatever you want, but when you step out of your cave and support authoritarian rule on other people, you better have a damn solid argument for doing so. I've asked you to defend that argument against valid challenges, and you have declined.

Perhaps you'd like to have a second chance to "show your quality". Here's your opportunity:

1. What is a "right"?

2. Where do rights come from?

3. Are rights equal between all people?

And your positions again requires inhuman humans. It's the same thing as Marxism which requires the same thing, people to not be people, but cogs in someones "perfect" political system.

A right is something inherent in a person that cannot be taken from them without severe consequences.

Rights come from people or god depending on your viewpoint.

Depends on your current adjudicated status

 

[martybegan]

I am communicating, you don't listen sometimes. You just like to smugly look down on everyone else and lecture them like some condescending pseudo intellectual.

So I'll repeat myself.

If you understand Marxism, you would know it's 100% across the board. That's what collectivism is. Everything you produce belongs to the state.

Or am I wrong?

Yes, that's a good description.

Do you really believe that there are many people who want everything produced to belong to the state?
.

Yes. There are people out there who agree with socialism, whereby the government is in control of taking and distributing monies equally amongst the people. Or at least that is what they THINK would happen. Lol.

That depends on your definition of socialism. Bernie Sanders' definition, for example, is the Euro-social democracies. Not Venezuela.

In those democracies, government does not own and control sources of production and distribution, which is the REAL definition of the socialism.

So until we can agree on terms, we won't get anywhere. And that will require honest communication.
.

You do realize that no one plans for Venezuela, it just kind of happens, right?

I understand, sure, but I'm confident our Constitution will prevent that.

So, the question remains, where along the continuum we choose to be.

As long as everyone is screaming and no one is listening, I suspect we'll just keep seeing these wild swings back & forth.
.

Our constitution is supposed to preserve, RKBA, but in some States it is in name only.

Constitutions only work when the people under them follow the rules set out by them. Once that goes, the end of the system is in sight.

 

[martybegan]

You do realize that no one plans for Venezuela, it just kind of happens, right?

If you're lucky....

You also can end up with soviet gulags, nazi concentration camps, chinese great leaps into mass graves, and cambodian "re-education" festivities.

Show me ONE socialist country where the economy is booming, innovations are flowing, and the standard of living keeps getting better.



.

You mistake me for someone who agrees with socialism. My point was every socialist assumes THEIR way of doing it will result in a workers paradise and everyone will go along with their plans.

And the current european countries referenced by Mac are not really socialist, because they keep the methods of production under private ownership, they just tax the daylights out of them.

It's more welfare state than socialist state, ironically modeled after the Prussian system implemented by Bismarck.

 

[Mac1958]

Yes, that's a good description.

Do you really believe that there are many people who want everything produced to belong to the state?
.

Yes. There are people out there who agree with socialism, whereby the government is in control of taking and distributing monies equally amongst the people. Or at least that is what they THINK would happen. Lol.

That depends on your definition of socialism. Bernie Sanders' definition, for example, is the Euro-social democracies. Not Venezuela.

In those democracies, government does not own and control sources of production and distribution, which is the REAL definition of the socialism.

So until we can agree on terms, we won't get anywhere. And that will require honest communication.
.

You do realize that no one plans for Venezuela, it just kind of happens, right?

I understand, sure, but I'm confident our Constitution will prevent that.

So, the question remains, where along the continuum we choose to be.

As long as everyone is screaming and no one is listening, I suspect we'll just keep seeing these wild swings back & forth.
.

Our constitution is supposed to preserve, RKBA, but in some States it is in name only.

Constitutions only work when the people under them follow the rules set out by them. Once that goes, the end of the system is in sight.

Well, that's already happening. We have a country that can't even agree on facts. We have a press (across the spectrum) that can't be trusted. We have people who refuse to communicate, opening the door to "divide & conquer".

If your point is that a tyrant can rise from such an environment, I guess I can't disagree. But this would be a self-inflicted wound. If we ended up like Venezuela, it would be because of our people, not our Constitution.
.

 

[martybegan]

Yes. There are people out there who agree with socialism, whereby the government is in control of taking and distributing monies equally amongst the people. Or at least that is what they THINK would happen. Lol.

That depends on your definition of socialism. Bernie Sanders' definition, for example, is the Euro-social democracies. Not Venezuela.

In those democracies, government does not own and control sources of production and distribution, which is the REAL definition of the socialism.

So until we can agree on terms, we won't get anywhere. And that will require honest communication.
.

You do realize that no one plans for Venezuela, it just kind of happens, right?

I understand, sure, but I'm confident our Constitution will prevent that.

So, the question remains, where along the continuum we choose to be.

As long as everyone is screaming and no one is listening, I suspect we'll just keep seeing these wild swings back & forth.
.

Our constitution is supposed to preserve, RKBA, but in some States it is in name only.

Constitutions only work when the people under them follow the rules set out by them. Once that goes, the end of the system is in sight.

Well, that's already happening. We have a country that can't even agree on facts. We have a press (across the spectrum) that can't be trusted. We have people who refuse to communicate, opening the door to "divide & conquer".

If your point is that a tyrant can rise from such an environment, I guess I can't disagree. But this would be a self-inflicted wound. If we ended up like Venezuela, it would be because of our people, not our Constitution.
.

I'm sorry but I see far more at fault with the left in this case than the right. Maybe 50 years ago the right was more about squashing dissent and playing hard and fast with the constitution as written, but to me it's all the Left now going for broke with their "my way or the highway" viewpoints.

Now there are exceptions, but when someone on the right disagrees with someone, their typical worst response is, "you are an idiot"

When someone on the left disagrees with someone, the typical worst response is "you are evil, and your position is not valid, therefore we need to ruin you any way we can"

 

[Mac1958]

That depends on your definition of socialism. Bernie Sanders' definition, for example, is the Euro-social democracies. Not Venezuela.

In those democracies, government does not own and control sources of production and distribution, which is the REAL definition of the socialism.

So until we can agree on terms, we won't get anywhere. And that will require honest communication.
.

You do realize that no one plans for Venezuela, it just kind of happens, right?

I understand, sure, but I'm confident our Constitution will prevent that.

So, the question remains, where along the continuum we choose to be.

As long as everyone is screaming and no one is listening, I suspect we'll just keep seeing these wild swings back & forth.
.

Our constitution is supposed to preserve, RKBA, but in some States it is in name only.

Constitutions only work when the people under them follow the rules set out by them. Once that goes, the end of the system is in sight.

Well, that's already happening. We have a country that can't even agree on facts. We have a press (across the spectrum) that can't be trusted. We have people who refuse to communicate, opening the door to "divide & conquer".

If your point is that a tyrant can rise from such an environment, I guess I can't disagree. But this would be a self-inflicted wound. If we ended up like Venezuela, it would be because of our people, not our Constitution.
.

I'm sorry but I see far more at fault with the left in this case than the right. Maybe 50 years ago the right was more about squashing dissent and playing hard and fast with the constitution as written, but to me it's all the Left now going for broke with their "my way or the highway" viewpoints.

Now there are exceptions, but when someone on the right disagrees with someone, their typical worst response is, "you are an idiot"

When someone on the left disagrees with someone, the typical worst response is "you are evil, and your position is not valid, therefore we need to ruin you any way we can"

I agree that the Regressive Left (not real liberals, mind you) is far more inclined to discount the Constitution and use it only when they see fit. These are the people who will tell you that it was written by rich white slave rapists, that it's outdated, and that it should be re-written.

You have an asymmetrical situation here. These people are counting on demographics to get them what they want, so they see zero (0) need to improve anything. They're just waiting.

At the same time, the Right's binary, all-or-nothing approach in response plays fine with its base but does little to attract anyone outside of it. So I don't really understand what their goal is.
.

 

[martybegan]

You do realize that no one plans for Venezuela, it just kind of happens, right?

I understand, sure, but I'm confident our Constitution will prevent that.

So, the question remains, where along the continuum we choose to be.

As long as everyone is screaming and no one is listening, I suspect we'll just keep seeing these wild swings back & forth.
.

Our constitution is supposed to preserve, RKBA, but in some States it is in name only.

Constitutions only work when the people under them follow the rules set out by them. Once that goes, the end of the system is in sight.

Well, that's already happening. We have a country that can't even agree on facts. We have a press (across the spectrum) that can't be trusted. We have people who refuse to communicate, opening the door to "divide & conquer".

If your point is that a tyrant can rise from such an environment, I guess I can't disagree. But this would be a self-inflicted wound. If we ended up like Venezuela, it would be because of our people, not our Constitution.
.

I'm sorry but I see far more at fault with the left in this case than the right. Maybe 50 years ago the right was more about squashing dissent and playing hard and fast with the constitution as written, but to me it's all the Left now going for broke with their "my way or the highway" viewpoints.

Now there are exceptions, but when someone on the right disagrees with someone, their typical worst response is, "you are an idiot"

When someone on the left disagrees with someone, the typical worst response is "you are evil, and your position is not valid, therefore we need to ruin you any way we can"

I agree that the Regressive Left (not real liberals, mind you) is far more inclined to discount the Constitution and use it only when they see fit. These are the people who will tell you that it was written by rich white slave rapists, that it's outdated, and that it should be re-written.

You have an asymmetrical situation here. These people are counting on demographics to get them what they want, so they see zero (0) need to improve anything. They're just waiting.

At the same time, the Right's binary, all-or-nothing approach in response plays fine with its base but does little to attract anyone outside of it. So I don't really understand what their goal is.
.

Can you give me a specific Right view they are "all or nothing" on?

 

[Pete7469]

You mistake me for someone who agrees with socialism. My point was every socialist assumes THEIR way of doing it will result in a workers paradise and everyone will go along with their plans.

And the current european countries referenced by Mac are not really socialist, because they keep the methods of production under private ownership, they just tax the daylights out of them.

It's more welfare state than socialist state, ironically modeled after the Prussian system implemented by Bismarck.

Please don't get me wrong, I know you're not an imbecile.

My comment was partially referencing your point that moonbat might intend to create some sort of utopia, but the results are ALWAYS dystopian to one degree or another. I was merely expanding on your point.


.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Well, the bottom line here is that nothing run by human beings will ever be perfect because WE are not perfect and we make mistakes and we become greedy and corrupted, etc., etc., etc. Could we have better than what we have now? Maybe, but there are going to be cons and some unintended consequences in just about everything we do.

That's why the knowledge/understanding/wisdom process is the only solution that actually solves. People absolutely do not want to hear this because it's "dressed in overalls and looks like work", but there is no short-cutting or circumventing this process.

Morality is a known through an elevation of consciousness. It's an understanding of an extant cause-and-effect dynamic, and requires that one be aware of the relevant knowledge, open to admitting that knowledge into their critical evaluative process, and acting on the wisdom thus derived. It is not idealistic to believe that if some can come to this understanding, then all can come to this understanding. In fact, it's more unrealistic to expect that you can deny the laws of nature and get away with it. Morality is a law of nature. Violent coercion (i.e. governmental authority) cannot ever, under any circumstances, yield a truly peaceful and prosperous society.

"The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, ‘Limit yourself’; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian." - Murray Rothbard

 

[Mac1958]

Can you give me a specific Right view they are "all or nothing" on?

All of them. The Right has been trained to see virtually everything from a binary perspective.

• If a Republican disagrees on something, they're not a Republican, they're a RINO.
• If a person wants higher taxes than a Trump voter, they're a commie. Or a Marxist.
• If a story comes out that they don't like, it's fake news.
• If someone promotes a social democracy, they want Venezuela.
• Abortion.
• Government programs.
• Health care.

Holy crap. I could go on.
.

 

[martybegan]

You mistake me for someone who agrees with socialism. My point was every socialist assumes THEIR way of doing it will result in a workers paradise and everyone will go along with their plans.

And the current european countries referenced by Mac are not really socialist, because they keep the methods of production under private ownership, they just tax the daylights out of them.

It's more welfare state than socialist state, ironically modeled after the Prussian system implemented by Bismarck.

Please don't get me wrong, I know you're not an imbecile.

My comment was partially referencing your point that moonbat might intend to create some sort of utopia, but the results are ALWAYS dystopian to one degree or another. I was merely expanding on your point.


.

Ah, got it.

And at most I am a drunken idiot, but I require alcohol to get to that point.

 

[martybegan]

Can you give me a specific Right view they are "all or nothing" on?

All of them. The Right has been trained to see virtually everything from a binary perspective.

• If a Republican disagrees on something, they're not a Republican, they're a RINO.
• If a person wants higher taxes than a Trump voter, they're a commie. Or a Marxist.
• If a story comes out that they don't like, it's fake news.
• If someone promotes a social democracy, they want Venezuela.
• Abortion.
• Government programs.
• Health care.

Holy crap. I could go on.
.

Maybe it seems binary because the left is taking such a hard position that you can't see the right is already compromising.

This cartoon is an example of it.

 

[Mac1958]

Can you give me a specific Right view they are "all or nothing" on?

All of them. The Right has been trained to see virtually everything from a binary perspective.

• If a Republican disagrees on something, they're not a Republican, they're a RINO.
• If a person wants higher taxes than a Trump voter, they're a commie. Or a Marxist.
• If a story comes out that they don't like, it's fake news.
• If someone promotes a social democracy, they want Venezuela.
• Abortion.
• Government programs.
• Health care.

Holy crap. I could go on.
.

Maybe it seems binary because the left is taking such a hard position that you can't see the right is already compromising.

This cartoon is an example of it.

It just seems binary to me based on my direct observation.
.

 

[martybegan]

Can you give me a specific Right view they are "all or nothing" on?

All of them. The Right has been trained to see virtually everything from a binary perspective.

• If a Republican disagrees on something, they're not a Republican, they're a RINO.
• If a person wants higher taxes than a Trump voter, they're a commie. Or a Marxist.
• If a story comes out that they don't like, it's fake news.
• If someone promotes a social democracy, they want Venezuela.
• Abortion.
• Government programs.
• Health care.

Holy crap. I could go on.
.

Maybe it seems binary because the left is taking such a hard position that you can't see the right is already compromising.

This cartoon is an example of it.

It just seems binary to me based on my direct observation.
.

or maybe the right has compromised to the point that further compromise isn't compromise, but capitulation.

That's way too many uses of compromise in some form or other in one sentence.

Compromise.

 

[Mac1958]

Can you give me a specific Right view they are "all or nothing" on?

All of them. The Right has been trained to see virtually everything from a binary perspective.

• If a Republican disagrees on something, they're not a Republican, they're a RINO.
• If a person wants higher taxes than a Trump voter, they're a commie. Or a Marxist.
• If a story comes out that they don't like, it's fake news.
• If someone promotes a social democracy, they want Venezuela.
• Abortion.
• Government programs.
• Health care.

Holy crap. I could go on.
.

Maybe it seems binary because the left is taking such a hard position that you can't see the right is already compromising.

This cartoon is an example of it.

It just seems binary to me based on my direct observation.
.

or maybe the right has compromised to the point that further compromise isn't compromise, but capitulation.

That's way too many uses of compromise in some form or other in one sentence.

Compromise.

So we remain stuck and in decay. That's our choice.
.